14-24 2.8 is a lens that sounds good on paper, but you'll get a heavy beast with an exposed front element, no filters, flare, and much lower IQ than the 14 2.8 prime. Better off with 14 2.8 and other primes or the 16-35 2.8 as a mate.

J. McCabe

14-24 2.8 is a lens that sounds good on paper, but you'll get a heavy beast with an exposed front element, no filters, flare, and much lower IQ than the 14 2.8 prime. Better off with 14 2.8 and other primes or the 16-35 2.8 as a mate.

For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.

I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.

As for flare, I have the Sigma 12-24mm, which has a flare problem. I still love it, use it, and plan to upgrade it to the announced mkII. If Canon announces an EF 14-24mm before I do, I might just sell the Sigma - a friend already said he would buy my copy if & when I do.

Logged

Canon 14-24

For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.

I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.

For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.

I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.

Easy, just add more plastic around where the barrel would extend, put one token piece of glass on the front, and keep the rest of the design exactly the same (and then the lens is permanently as long as the longest it is now)Or don't even put a piece of glass on the front, a la the 16 - 35 L.

Also, I think the 14-24 would do more wonders for canon than they realise, especially if it's f/2.8. It would attract a lot of 7D (maybe even 60D) buyers, as an upgrade path to a Full Fram eventually. Sure, the 10-22 is wider, but i'd put up with 'only' 14mm until i upgraded to FF, and the only other fast/2.8 option is the Tokina 11-16 (i'd take a Canon FF compatible and probably better IQ if it's an L, over the Tokina for 3mm wider and probably a lot cheaper).

RandomDude

Adding IS isn't all positives. It adds significant size, weight, complexity, and the biggest issue for most; cost. Best case scenario, IS will only add $500-600 to the cost. That's still a fairly significant sum. I'm sure many people that don't want or need IS would opt for the non-IS version.

There are many lenses with IS that cost less than $500 - so the IS system itself cannot cost that much. They may charge that much more because they *can*, but not because they have to. When comparing the 70-200 f2.8 IS and non-IS, we see about 10% increase in weight and a slight increase in size. On the f4 versions, the weight increase is about the same, but the size increase is negligible (+1mm diameter). The optics are more complicated in the IS versions, but the image quality isn't worse - especially not if you consider the new mkII IS version.

My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.

TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.

My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.

They absolutely could. The question is, will they? I think a 24-70/2.8L IS would come in somewhere in the $2200-2300 range, and a non-IS MkII version would be $1700-1800. If they could do an IS version for $1800-ish however, it would greatly reduce the need for a cheaper non-IS version.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.

I agree completely. I think they should put IS on nearly every lens they have, even some of the short primes.

TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.

I would be surprised (and disappointed) if the new version didn't come with IS. But I would also be surprised if they didn't either continue to offer the old non-IS version, and/or release a MkII (non-IS) a couple of years down the road.

Dymonds

Re: 24-70L ii - Appreciate that IS is not usual for this size zoom. That said, @ 2.8, personally, I think that IS would greatly assist given the size & weight for a everyday zoom.

Re: 14-24L 2.8 - I have not yet purchased any equipment (waiting for these announcements) but was considering the 16-35L 2.8 to partner the 24-70L and 70-200L. Given that the 16-35 covers a large spectrum for wide angle shots, what benefits would the 14-24 provide (one downside I can see is that you would have to change lenses above 24 whereas with the 16-35, you have a crossover range)

illyusha

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.[/quote]

not only Sigma, Tokina has made a whole bunch of different midrange zooms (few versions of 28-70, then 28-80), none of which had the extending front element issue. Shame that apparently it's not optimal design IQ-wise, as no one else is producing such zooms now.